Yes, Kamala Harris Is Eligible For Vice President

440px-Senator_Harris_official_senate_portraitThe media is alight today after the publication of a piece in Newsweek by Chapman University Professor John C. Eastman that raised the question of whether Sen. Kamala Harris is a citizen and eligible to be Vice President.  She is.  The courts have long recognized that individuals born in the United States are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. In fairness to Professor Eastman and Newsweek, this has been a debate that has been raised during prior elections over candidates ranging from Chester Arthur to Barack Obama to John McCain.

Birthright citizenship has been a subject of debate from the time that the 14th Amendment was adopted.  There are arguments on both sides of the currently accepted broad interpretation of the language.  Many of our closest allies reject the concept of birthright citizenship.

However, the case law is strongly supports Harris.  In 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court found that the child of Chinese immigrants was still a citizen under the 14th Amendment because he was born on U.S. territory. His parents were here legally as permanent residents.  Moreover, the language of the 14th Amendment does not clearly support the exclusions raised by Eastman.  It states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Most reading that language have concluded that it allows for birthright citizenship for anyone “born … in the United States.”  The 14th Amendment starts and ends as a model of clarity, stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are “citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But between those two phrases, Congress inserted the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those six words have perplexed scholars for 150 years. The dominant view of law professors is the line as a whole guarantees that anyone born within the United States becomes an American citizen. But some believe that the caveat means you must be here in a legal status, that if you are not a American citizen, then you are a legal resident.

I do not believe that there is a credible question of Harris’ eligibility. However, I am concerned with the attacks on Newsweek and the author from a free speech standpoint. This issue has been raised for decades and the Supreme Court cases are few and are not dispositive on all aspects of the question.

In prior coverage of candidates like McCain, there was not a demand for newspapers to denounce their own publications. Eastman is a professor who raised a commonly discussed constitutional and political issue. There is no reason to denounce him as a racist or Newsweek as an enabler of racism. Media often publish controversial theories. There were not demands for retractions when a Harvard professor said Trump was not actually impeached when he was impeached, a North Carolina professor saying the entire Trump defense team would face bar charges, or any number of the controversial theories of criminality against Trump.  Instead we simply debated the issues, which actually raised interesting historical or ethical questions.

LA Times’ Michael McGough called Newsweek’s explanation “feeble” when it insisted that it was merely sharing a constitutional viewpoint and not attempting  “to ignite a racist conspiracy theory around Kamala Harris’ candidacy.” Yet, this “feeble” reason has been the basis for past articles on the debate over the 14th Amendment in major publications for decades.

Rather than contest the analysis of Professor Eastman, people are attacking Newsweek for allowing his views to be heard. It is an effort to force a cringing apology like the ones following the publication of the column by Sen. Tom Cotton in the New York Times.  Eastman indicated that his theory would not likely be accepted. Yet, he put forward the case for a narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Even a Congressional Research Service report from 2011 acknowledged such countervailing theories before concluding,, correctly, that

“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”

 

175 thoughts on “Yes, Kamala Harris Is Eligible For Vice President”

  1. Since Harris was entitled to citizenship at birth, she is a US citizen.

    There are certainly arguments to be made about birthright citizenship, as it was designed to make slaves US citizens. It was never intended to lead to anchor babies that would allow illegal aliens a loophole around our immigration system.

    But that’s an entirely different argument.

    Kamala Harris is a US citizen, and therefore entitled to run for President or Vice President.

    Since the Democrat Party has plowed the cities it controls into crime, homelessness, and blight, and they have enabled and supported riots and looting, as well as defunding the police, I very much hope she and Biden lose. Our economy would fold completely and the rest of the nation might end up like CA, WA, OR, etc. We’re becoming like a Third World, and throwing away our successes.

    You don’t put a party infamous for driving businesses out of states they control, in charge of the economic recovery after a global pandemic. That’s just not wise.

  2. Jonathan: It was predictable. As soon as Senator Kamala Harris was chosen as Biden’s running mate Trump trotted out the discredited racist “birther” conspiracy theory he tried unsuccessfully to use against Biden. But since there is no dispute Harris was born in Oakland, California Trump had to come up with a different theory about how Harris is “ineligible” to be the VP candidate. That crackpot legal theory was provided by Chapman University professor John Eastman in his Newsweek op-ed . In it Eastman claimed that Harris was ineligible to be the VP candidate because her parents, immigrants from Jamaica and India, were not “naturalized US citizens at the time of Harris’ birth in 1964”. As you rightly pointed out Eastman’s theory is not supported in either the 14th Amendment or case law. Constitutional law experts Erwin Chemerinsky and Lawrence Tribe have ridiculed Eastman’s tortured reading of the law. Jessica Levinson, law professor at Loyola Law School, said: “Let’s just be honest about what it is: It’s just a racist trope we trot out when we have a candidate of color whose parents were not citizens”. Eastman’s article has rightly caused controversy but Trump gave the nod to Eastman saying it was written by a “very highly qualified, very talented lawyer”. He likes lawyers who support his racist attacks on women of color–and Eastman likes the public attention. Maybe Trump will have AG Barr offer Eastman a prominent position in the DOJ.

    For those of your followers who don’t know, Eastman is no stranger to controversy. In 2010 Eastman ran for California attorney general. In the primary he lost to fellow Republican Steve Cooley. Before the primary Eastman filed suit when the California Secretary of State rejected his ballot identification as “Assistant Attorney General” because “it was misleading to voters”. Eastman lost the court battle. Cooley’s campaign labeled Eastman’s proposed ballot identification as a “blatantly false and misleading ballot designation in an effort to fool voters.” Guess who won the general election? Kamala Harris. So I think much of what prompted Eastman’s op-ed against Harris’ candidacy is sour grapes. He probably still thinks he would have been the better candidate to run against Harris. So Eastman’s op-ed was not a “scholarly article”, as he claims, but a “blatantly false” attempt by him to discredit Harris’ candidacy. But on the positive side Eastman’s free speech rights have not been infringed. Chapman University has not taken any disciplinary against the professor. No doubt you will be pleased by the outcome.

    1. Dennis, there is no bottom to the BS and conspiracy nonsense Trump will promote to save his own a.s, nor to the willingness of his willing fools to believe it. It’s here on this board everyday.

    2. I don’t have time to write a book like you but your wrong. Trump didn’t start any birther hoax. Philip Berg, A Clinton operative filed the first suit when Hillary ran against Obama. That was not a hoax, Obama just like Harris, Cruz and Rubio are not eligible. My source, Library of Congress,1st Congress, 1stSession. The Congress discussed what was meant by NATURAL BORN. The above do not meet those qualifications and the 14th amendment has nothing to do with being NATURAL BORN. Law is very specific, if it doesn’t say something you can’t read something in to it. Good luck with your next novel but do the research so you won’t be parroting crap.

  3. Funny how the other side changes their mind depending on whose running. I was born of a USA parent and an English parent both descended from Norwegians. Never mind that when I received my Certificate of Citizenship I was listed as eligibile to be President though born in another country. Even though I also earned my citizenship after retiring from the US Army combat arms. On those grounds neither Biden nor Harris are eligibile. Lack of competence, experience, and morak ethics rules them out. Side issue Both of them qualify to be a Supreme Court J not because of a sheepskin because the only qualifications are nomination and confirmation.

  4. Kamala Harris’ father, Don Harris, was a Marxist professor.

    Don Harris and Kamala Harris are the reasons why the American Founders required presidents to be “natural born citizens.”
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    MARXIST OFFERED ECONOMICS POST

    “On March 11 1974, a Stanford Daily article reported renewed demands by the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) on the Economics Dept. for a commitment to teaching Marxian economics. Statements by department chairman Moses Abramovitz quoted in that article constitute a clear attempt on his part to obscure and distort the issues Abramovitz cited “the Marxian economics workshop that is now a regular departmental seminar, a graduate theory course on Marx, Don Harris’ courses, and the recently approved field of study in ‘alternative approaches to economic analysis.'”

    – KeyWiki

  5. NEWSFLASH –

    Kamala Harris’ parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.

    “Kamala Harris” information on the date of citizenship of her parents has been “scrubbed” from the Internet and, presumably, social media.

    It’s all sweetness and light.

    Oh, my, these communists are busy little beavers.

  6. If Kamala Harris IS a “natural born citizen,” who IS NOT a “natural born citizen?”

    WHY is “natural born citizen” a requirement for president in the Constitution if it has no relevance, bearing or application?

    1. Now we know why this barren woman was so promiscuous; why she is so “angry!”
      ________________________________________________________________

      “Who Is Kamala Harris’s Dad Donald Harris, a Renowned Stanford Professor?”

      “He was divorced from Kamala’s mother.”

      “Kamala’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, passed away in 2009 of colon cancer. She and Donald divorced when Kamala was 7.”

      – MarieClaire

    1. One almost wonders if certain fixations which emerge from the Republican soup are not distractions, disinformation that is magnified telephone style until it overshadows more consequential matters,

      like how manifestly unfit Joe is due to cognitive decline, or how plastic and fake the mercenary Kamala has always been. and under-qualified for office.

    2. It’s really quite simple:

      1. Parents who are citizens.

      2. A father who is a citizen.

      Voila! We have a “natural born citizen.”

      Your kook is Vattel. The Law of Nations was the legal text and reference of the era. Jay, Washington and the Framers either coined or copied the “natural born citizen” phrase and concept – citation please. All presidents before Obama had two parents who were citizens and a father who was a citizen. It’s kooky to arbitrarily modify the Constitution and precedent. It was kooky in 2008 to alter 220 years of adherence to clear fundamental law and venerable tradition.

      “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

      “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
      ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

      Book 1, Ch. 19
      § 212. Citizens and natives.

      “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

  7. Those that challenge are correct, unless her parents were either citizens or permanent residents, then Harris was definitely NOT “subject to the jurisdiction of. ” Historically speaking, freeman ship, residency, etc., required an oath of fidelity, simply living within borders did not and does not in any way legally qualify as “subject to the jurisdiction.” Illegals, so-called “anchor babies,” do not qualify for the very same reason; to suggest they do is to ignore our 400 year history.

    1. You can’t tell fools anything and they won’t do the research, they have been taught to believe and are very good at it. They don’t know anything is wrong and sure as hell don’t want to find out. The unaware are unaware of being unaware.

    2. “unless her parents were either citizens or permanent residents, then Harris was definitely NOT ‘subject to the jurisdiction of.’”

      You’re mistaken.

      Everyone in the U.S. is under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws, except those with diplomatic immunity. People here on visitors’ visas, people here illegally, people here on student visas, … are all “subject to the jurisdiction of” the U.S. — if they break a U.S. law, they can be charged under U.S. law.

      1. Kamala Harris and her parents were documented, known to the government, known to be in the country, legal and “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof,….” Kamala Harris is a “citizen.” Kamala Harris was not the child of U.S. citizens. Because Kamala Harris’ parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris is not a “natural born citizen” and Kamala Harris is not eligible for the office of president.
        ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        The requirement in the 14th Amendment has two parts. To be a citizen, the person must be “…born or naturalized in the United States, “AND” subject to the jurisdiction thereof,….”

        An undocumented alien and its new-born child are not known to the United States, are not known to be in the United States, are illegal and must be deported.

        If a person is not known to the government or known to be in the country, it cannot be claimed that the person is under the jurisdiction of any but their own country of origin.

        “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, “AND” subject to the jurisdiction thereof,…”
        ____________________________________________________________________________

        14th Amendment
        Section 1

        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  8. Same thing happened with Obama. Now Harris. Baffle them with citizen bull shit and skip the NATURAL BORN REQUIREMENT.

      1. Obama did not have “…parents who were citizens…” and “…a father who is a citizen…” per the accepted definition of “natural born citizen” in the legal text and reference of the era, The Law of Nations, 1758.

    1. Richard,

      Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts, who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. Do you seriously believe that he would have sworn Obama in as President if Obama weren’t eligible? Seriously? Have you constructed some conspiracy theory to account for it?

      Do you think you understand the Constitution better than SCOTUS?

      1. The name ‘John Roberts’ is on the Epstein flight logs. Could explain Chief Justice Roberts’ bizarre decisions. Things that make you go, hmmmm.

        1. Like comrade Roberts commingling the definitions of the words “federal” and “state” in order to facilitate the Obamacare “exchanges.”

  9. The Democrats raise this question against Barry Goldwater in 1960 because he was born in the Arizona Territory before it became a state. Professor you missed this one that shows the duplicity of the Democrats.

    1. Roger, your totally vague comment fails to tell us ‘which’ Democrats questioned Goldwater’s citizenship or how far that questioning went. Which makes us wonder if there’s any truth whatsoever to the assertion.

      And as a side note, I’ve never seen your name on these comment threads before.

      1. My mistake, it was September 4,1964, and San Francisco attorney Melvin Belli, a well known liberal democrat, filed a lawsuit to keep Goldwater off the ballot because he was not a citizen having been born in the Arizona Territory. The lawsuit was funded by Democrat publisher Ralph Ginzburg. Ginzburg published an article in Sept-Oct 1964 issue of his Fact Magazine that questioned Senator Goldwater’s mental stability. Goldwater later successfully sued Ginzburg for defamation. If you are at least a little curious you should do a little reading before you challenge someone credibility. For the record, I am a old Hubert Humphrey Democrat that has been run out of the party,
        never to return.

  10. No, Kamala Harris is not eligible for president and, therefore, vice president.
    ____________________________________________________________

    Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president or vice president.

    Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.

    – A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

    – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

    – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

    – “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the
    modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the
    nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion,” Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.

    – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

    – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

    – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

    Book 1, Ch. 19

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

    “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

    From John Jay

    New York 25 July 1787

    Dear Sir

    I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

    Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

    Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

    which sailed Yesterday.

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

    provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

    administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

    of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

    Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

    I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

    John Jay

  11. The Newsweek piece is a thinly disguised effort to gain sympathy for K Harris. Because she has been in the spotlight a lot already and revealed her true self, they will try to humanize her as much as possible. That’s what you do for inauthentic people who cannot connect to others on their own.

  12. It seems that with all the debates about natural born status and who can hold certain elective offices, I would think that maybe some of our legislators would like to craft a bill that might fix this. But then again maybe the ruling class in this country likes things just the way they are.

    1. No she is not. Library of Congress. 1st Congress, 1st Session. Read what the 1st Congress has to say about the meaning of NATURAL BORN. The 14 amendment is about citizenship not the legal meaning of NATURAL BORN.

        1. There is no case law for NATURAL BORN CITIZEN verses Citizen. Give us the site. Have you read the 1st Congress discussion on NATURAL BORN and have you looked at the meaning at the time of writing. 14th amendment has nothing to do with being NATURAL BORN. READ IT.

            1. You can’t give me one. I’ve already searched Verses and West’s. Turkey is conflating citizen and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, same thing the media does and you. The 1st Congress discussion is about this and Turley is wrong. Read what Congress says then try and support Turleys position. This has not ever been the litigated but needs to be. There is a process when this happens and it needs to be followed. Hillary Clinton put McCain through it. Why don’t democrats have to follow the law?

                1. And if you would just read what the 1st Congress said you would see they discussed exactly what the good professor said. They disagreed with Blackstone and made the parents the issue. Think about it, Putin and his wife could have a child on the White House steps live their entire life in Russia and upon reaching 35 yrs old would be eligible for the highest office in the land. The founders had this exact conversation and you should read for yourselves. Stop just believing and read.

                2. A nation cannot possibly “…provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into…government…” or assure that “…the Command in Chief…not be given to…any but a natural born Citizen…” by allowing children of non-citizens to become president. Simply being born in a country does not assure allegiance, per Blackstone. Being born of two citizens and of a father who is a citizen furthers that aim.

                  Why would anyone reject the words of the actual Founders and apply the words of a diametrical opponent?

                  Please ask Mr. Blackstone if his theory presumed that children born in the country also had parents who were citizens of the country – he doesn’t mention the status of parents.

                  Ask Mr. Blackstone if he was designing law that allowed a “natural born citizen” to run for the office of King (your basis is flawed – Blackstone is irrelevant).

                  Ask Mr. Blackstone if he considered children born in the country of illegal aliens “natural born citizens.”

                  You subjectively set a goal and proceed to reconfigure the facts to meet your goal.
                  _________________________________________________________________

                  To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

                  From John Jay

                  New York 25 July 1787

                  Dear Sir

                  I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

                  Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

                  Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

                  which sailed Yesterday.

                  Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

                  provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

                  administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

                  of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

                  Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

                  Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

                  I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

                  John Jay

          1. The “case law” is the pudding – it is in the Jay/Washington letter which imposed a “STRONG CHECK” against candidates for president and command in chief as citizenship status – the strongest check, “natural born citizen,” being far stronger than “citizen,” the only formal and complete definition existing in the Law of Nations, 1758, which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,….” according to Ben Franklin.

            “Natural Born Citizen”- Strong Check

            “Citizen” – Weak Check
            ___________________

            To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

            From John Jay

            New York 25 July 1787

            Dear Sir

            I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

            Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

            Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

            which sailed Yesterday.

            Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

            provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

            administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

            of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

            Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

            Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

            I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

            John Jay

            1. And the 1st Congress discussion on this is on the record in the 1st Session. They explain exactly what they mean by NATURAL BORN. READ FOR YOURSELVES and see how these so called law experts and media ass wipes lie.

  13. We beat the “natural born citizen” baloney to death on this blog over ten years ago. Anyone who honestly believes there is still something of substance to argue about is welcome to slog through the archives. As for Newsweek, they are permitted to publish any opinions they see fit, as is any other entity or person. My opinion on censorship, blasphemy laws, speech codes, safe zones and hate speech legislation remains unchanged: constitutionally unsound and terrible policy.

      1. 1. You’d bet wrong. 2. I don’t engage with anonymous posters because I’m not interested in separating trolls from authentic posters. Have an opinion? Become a real person.

        1. I don’t care what you engage in. Remain a bigot. Read what Congress said and you will see these LAW PROFESSORS haven’t done the research.

      2. This prevaricator is a zealous communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) who has not addressed any of the facts of the case, which lead invariably to only one conclusion.

    1. “Natural born citizen” baloney.

      That’s what I call a cogent legal argument.

      Alternatively, it’s cover for someone hiding his socio/political engineering ambitions.

      Of course, the strongest check” that Jay and Washington could impose is that of citizenship status – “natural born citizen” being substantially stronger than “citizen,” which, by the way, is what Kamala Harris is.

      1. The 14th and Wong Kim Ark both concern “citizenship” not “natural born citizenship” although the decision in Wong Kim Ark is sloppy with language and seems to conflate “citizen at birth” with “natural born citizen.” If they are the same thing, then Harris would be qualified, barring new facts and a new interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction…”

        However, there is a reasonable argument to be made that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are NOT synonymous, but rather that “natural born citizen” is a term of art that means some kind of super citizen without the possibility of divided loyalties – born in the country of two citizen parents. If “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are NOT synonymous, then this is an issue of first impression because we have no binding authority on the meaning of “natural born citizen” as used in Article II (i.e., in the context of a dispute over eligibility to be POTUS).

        Anyone telling you this is a settled matter is being an advocate not an analyst.

        1. Go to the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 1ST CONGRESS,1ST SESSION. THEY DISCUSS THIS. The meaning at the time of writing and what they want it to mean. OBAMA, HARRIS,RUBIO,CRUZ ARE NOT ELIGIBLE.

            1. You would be correct if the other parent was residing in the U.S. legally one year prior to birth, their citizenship doesn’t matter.

Leave a Reply